How Sickening Will Sweden Get?

Their gamble is that if we give the Organization of Islamic Cooperation just a little something -- just a "harmless" little law -- then we might all just be able to get along. But for every inch of encouragement the free nations of the world give the OIC, the more Reza Jabbaris we sacrifice -- and a million more free-thinking souls.

How to deal with one madman is tricky enough, but how do you rectify things if the whole world has gone mad? Take Sweden and its apparent determination to deport Reza Jabbari back to his native Iran, most likely to be killed for having converted from Islam to Christianity.

First, there is the growing phenomenon of individuals being targeted for retribution if they have been seen to "insult" Islam. In particular there is the terrible recent case of Lars Hedegaard, who was targeted by an assassin at his home in Denmark earlier this month. The larger tapestry that hangs behind incidents such as the attempted assassination of Lars Hedegaard, Kurt Westergaard and others, however, is not just the attempt to silence a few brave voices, but the attempt to silence an entire planet. I refer of course to the attempt to criminalize – around the world – any speech which is deemed to be offensive to Islam.

This process is not only ongoing among the 57 Islamic countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), but is being considered – rather than laughed out of the room – by, among other countries, the United States of America.

For more than a decade the OIC, originating from Pakistan, has been attempting to bring in legislation via the UN to criminalize "Defamation of Religions." Last December Hillary Clinton made a speech at the Istanbul Process's meeting (in London, shamefully) on "Combating intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief."

Here is the first paragraph:

Well, good afternoon, everyone, and I want to thank you all for participating in this conference where we are working together to protect two fundamental freedoms – the right to practice one's religion freely and the right to express one's opinion without fear.

Right there is the problem. Because her two "fundamental freedoms" might be a square peg or a round peg. But there is absolutely no way that either will ever fit into an OIC-shaped hole. Of course the OIC will continue to talk in generalities. So let us talk specifics. While the OIC pretends to worried about its feelings, let us consider a real-life, concrete, current example.

Reza Jabbari is an Iranian by birth. He is also a convert to Christianity. He is currently seeking asylum in Sweden. Why would this possibly be necessary? Surely if the OIC are being honest, Mr. Jabbari is merely someone with a different opinion from the people who run the country of his birth? And surely if the Iranians are worried about "offense" to religion, they would be standing up to ensure that Mr. Jabbari does not have his Christian faith insulted by the claims of Muslims that he is forever Muslim because he happened to have been born into a Muslim family.

Alas, the realities of the OIC are otherwise. As are those of the Swedish authorities, who appear to be doing everything they can to ensure that Mr. Jabbari is returned to Iran, where he is likely to be imprisoned, sentenced to death, or both. I suppose the Swedes reason that do not have room for him, even with all those empty homes the Jews left behind when they fled Malmo.

But let us take the Hillary Clinton view of things. Iran is one of the countries which has been pushing for an international blasphemy law. If you are Iran, hungry for people like Mr. .Jabbari to be put in their appropriate place, at the end of a crane, would you think, when the American Secretary of State even speaks on your favorite fake subject at your best pet forum, that things are going your own way, or more in what used to be known as the American way?

Put conversely, if you are, say, one of the millions of people who happen to have been born in a country such as Iran or another majority Muslim country, and you had thought that you might like to move around a bit faith-wise -- as plenty of cultural Jews, Christians and atheists do -- would you think that things globally were going in a good-ish direction for you and your religious freedom? Or would you think that the opposite was true and wonder about acting accordingly?

To put the most benign motives on the Obama administration's willingness not to "offend" the OIC, I suppose it is possible that they think that they can encourage the Islamic world in a more tolerant direction. "Nudge" it perhaps? Perhaps Hillary and Barack can sort of "nudge" the Islamic world in a better direction? Sure, it does not understand the idea of freedom of conscience or freedom of religion or freedom of belief right now. And sure, it hasn't had such a good record in any of these matters over the course of fourteen hundred years. But perhaps this time the Islamic world might start to see infidel light?

Well, the administration then is more optimistic than I am. If there is one thing you can say about this subject, after countless discussions over the years, it is that if anything ever does move, it does not move fast.

Some years ago I found myself on the BBC debating a very moderate sort of gentleman, Dr. Tim Winters, who teaches at Cambridge University, England. He is a quiet, reflective type; and as a convert to Islam, he is known as Sheikh Abdul Hakim Murad. In Britain, he is widely thought to be just about the most moderate theologian going.

Anyhow – during our discussion we got into a disagreement on the matter of the punishment for apostasy. I mentioned that it is particularly regrettable that the punishment still mandated in all the major schools of Islam -- to this day -- continues to be death. But Tim mentioned something interesting – apparently game-changing. He said that he had recently attended a seminar in Jordan with some muftis from that neighborhood; and that the interesting upshot of all their discussions was that there had been some agreement that death may not after all be absolutely necessary for apostasy. The ultra-moderate compromise was that "maybe a custodial sentence" would do. [See 8 minutes into the video] "Too kind, too kind", I found myself replying.

Anyway, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and all the other people who are meant to be leading the free world are busy launching us – again to take the kindest possible interpretation – on one of the grandest gambles of all time. Their gamble is that if they give the Islamists of the OIC just a little something – a little nod, a little encouragement, just a "harmless" little law -- then we might all just be able to get along.

They are looking at this in exactly the wrong way. Because for every inch of encouragement the free nations of the world give the OIC, the more Reza Jabbaris we sacrifice to them. Literally. And for every one of the Reza Jabbaris we sacrifice to them, a million more free-thinking souls within the Muslim world will reckon that the strong horse in all this, such as the U.S., is the weak horse and the weak horse, such as the Arab World, is the strong horse. And those millions of people will act accordingly. In Tehran first, but then in Sweden, and Denmark, and finally in America. Perhaps the next American Secretary of State can address the next OIC conference by simply saying, "Whatever you want is perfect!"

Comment on this item

11 Reader Comments

Daryl • Feb 28, 2013 at 10:53

Let it simply be remembered how we came by our current possession of a constitutionally-rooted freedom of religion: It came from the ends of quills being applied to parchment––quills firmly gripped by men in whose own hearts throbbed the spiritual conviction that this was a fundamental right, an inalienable right, belonging to all. We can little expect this principle to be helped, and may understandably fear its erosion, by any political leaders today in whose hearts does not immovably reside that same conviction. That they be Christian is no requirement at all to the protection of this inalienable freedom at home, and steady efforts toward its development abroad; rather, they must only see and see clearly––that the freedom they themselves enjoy to openly be Christian, Jew, Muslim, agnostic, or atheist––and this list is by no means intented to be exhaustive––is only as certainly secured as is the religious freedom of the least popular and smallest minority in the ranks of those they undertake to lead.

Reply->

David Daryl • May 3, 2013 at 10:40

It's all too easy to forget these hard-won principles.

Reply->

Denis MacEoin • Feb 28, 2013 at 09:34

Thanks, Douglas, for this. Excellent, as usual. I would add something to what you say about Iran. The country's largest (but diminishing) religious minority is the indigenous Baha'i religion. To speak of freedom of religion or freedom of speech in the context of Iran and the Baha'is is laughable. Baha'i leaders (over 200) have been hanged. All their holy places have been razed to the ground. Members are fobidden to enter any profession, as doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. Young Baha'is are forbidden by law to enroll in universities. They are forbidden to publish. Even women teaching Sunday School have been hanged. Conversion to Baha'ism is punishable. Iran has no respect at all for non-Muslim religions. And the Baha'is live under cover in all Muslim countries. They are the canary in the mine. And look how well they are treated in Israel.

Reply->

Steiner • Feb 28, 2013 at 06:55

But what happens when Caesar encroaches upon what is God's?... The arrogant and devilish (and make no mistake, this is a law of the devil and of his minions) conviction that a soul is to remain in Satan's grip, or be murdered is now to become the law of the world...

Yet Paul, by the power of the Holy Spirit, writes: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:35-39, KJV).

Death has lost its sting.... Christ is resurrected, and by this we who know him are assured that we too shall live and see face to face, with our very eyes, our God in Christ... truly we can raise our eyes to heaven and exclaim... we are not citizens of this world below!

Maranatha, Jesus come...

Reply->

John MacArthur • Feb 27, 2013 at 06:07

In 2005, I was living in Jerusalem during the Gush Katif giveaway which paved the way for the rise of Hamas in Gaza and the 12,000 missiles fired on Sderot, the Negev, and Ashkelon. There were demonstrations aplenty. A significant percentage of Israelis believed this to be no small concession but a catastrophic and irreversible initiative and took to the streets in peaceful protest to bring their opinions to a wider public; but, to no avail, the government of the time seemed oblivious to the consequences, or they felt the risk was worth taking for the sake of democracy. What the West still lamentably fails to grasp is that Islamic states and political systems have at the heart of their political agenda the notion that "it is in the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet" (Hussein Al-Banna - founder of Hamas). By implication, therefore, free speech is suppressed as irrelevant and force is the only effective countermeasure. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is a daily lesson in how it works. The radical Islamist sees compromise as weakness and will exploit it to the full. How long is it going to take before people get the message?

Reply->

David John MacArthur • May 3, 2013 at 10:45

Alas, we seem to be prevented from seeing what is under our noses by the very liberal instincts we take for granted as universal. This is a serious error.

Reply->

Balakrishnan • Feb 26, 2013 at 23:48

Sweden is now a peaceful country, and by giving shelter to Islam in Sweden the Swedes themselves are digging their own grave - and we cannot blame Islamists.

Reply->

A.J. Forester • Feb 26, 2013 at 22:36

I just want to let Douglas Murray know that his work is being read and deeply appreciated. He is brilliant, brave, and insightful. After a number of months with few articles by him, it is good to read two in a short time.

Reply->

Bart Benschop • Feb 26, 2013 at 19:44

Dear Sir,

Sweden as a neutral country allowed German troops to cross their territory in Swedish trains to invade Norway. During World War II they exported iron ore and coal to Germany. Apart from these gross examples, many more can be found.

Kind regards,

Bart Benschop

Reply->

Jayemgee • Feb 26, 2013 at 15:03

The push to legislate against defaming religions bears some consideration. If the terms of the legislation are as broad as the they suggest - prohibiting expressions that would fuel discrimination, extremism, and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequence, then Muslims will have the long awaited opportunity to contain the corrosive anti-Semitism long associated with their faith... assuming, that is, that the law will be applicable to all faiths.

Reply->

Edward Cline • Feb 26, 2013 at 06:49

I think Mr. Murray cuts Hillary Clinton too much slack. Surely, after all her close conferences with Islamists and Muslim leaders around the globe over the last four years, she's mastered the art of taqiyya, or the art of Islamic double-speak: saying one thing in public, but meaning just the opposite. In this case, for the benefit of her friends in the OIC: "Good afternoon, everyone. I want to thank you all for not letting the cat out of the bag, that I will work with all my energies, even when I'm no longer Secretary of State, to so qualify the First Amendment with American hate speech law that it may as well be stricken from our Constitution. After all, Muslims everywhere have a right to practice their religion freely and without fear of mockery, depredation, and criticism. Of course, the same principle, some might say, is applicable to Christians, Jews, Hindus, and atheists, but that is open to negotiation." (Applause by audience)

The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.
Both reserve the right not to publish replies to articles should they so choose.
Gatestone Institute is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, Federal Tax ID #454724565.